Noted iAmCaffeine

[TeeGee]

Topic will be unlocked if someone has actual evidence to contribute to this case

[TeeGee]

p.s.-eagerly awaiting the NEW precedent this wholly original complaint sets!!

After discussion we have decided this is actually original and different from the other tournament advancement precedents.

Iamcaffeine has suicided on the hope that he (or she) may advance, not to guarantee he would advance.

Given that this is different to the other previous cases and that we have no guarantee that the action of caff would see him advance, This case is NOTED

[shoop76]

p.s.-eagerly awaiting the NEW precedent this wholly original complaint sets!!

After discussion we have decided this is actually original and different from the other tournament advancement precedents.

Iamcaffeine has suicided on the hope that he (or she) may advance, not to guarantee he would advance.

Given that this is different to the other previous cases and that we have no guarantee that the action of caff would see him advance, This case is NOTED

So now the mods are going to tell us what strategy we can and cannot use. Not saying that I agree with his strategy, but it wa s his strategy.

[iAmCaffeine]

Really? Nothing is guaranteed. Two days ago I lost a 20v2 assault. Baseless accusation followed by a baseless result.

[eddie2]

Teegee i think you missed one sentence from the op. They hade a arguement. Many a time king achilles has stated that arguement can influence a decission to suicide. I am 100 percent sure caffine would of stayed away from him in games. But that cannot happen in tourneys. So the argument could of made him decide to attack him. This should not be noted.

[iAmCaffeine]

Teegee i think you missed one sentence from the op. They hade a arguement. Many a time king achilles has stated that arguement can influence a decission to suicide. I am 100 percent sure caffine would of stayed away from him in games. But that cannot happen in tourneys. So the argument could of made him decide to attack him. This should not be noted.

Why are you even here? You're repeating things that have been said already and let's be honest, you don't add anything to any discussion ever so shoo.

[eddie2]

Lol ok whatever caffine. Last time i looked this was a community freedom of speech and all that. I am commenting on the result. Since this has been noted it brings in a new precident in these cases, i use suicide often in events to help me move on.(lol remember the assasin olympics took you out didnt i ) so yes i have a interest in the result and not you the accused. Teegees noted did not mention the arguement so proberly wasnt taken into account.

[iAmCaffeine]

Lol ok whatever caffine. Last time i looked this was a community freedom of speech and all that. I am commenting on the result. Since this has been noted it brings in a new precident in these cases, i use suicide often in events to help me move on.(lol remember the assasin olympics took you out didnt i ) so yes i have a interest in the result and not you the accused. Teegees noted did not mention the arguement so proberly wasnt taken into account.

Proberly? What?

I argue with people in the forums almost on a daily basis. Does that mean every single game I've ever played against someone who's posted in the forums needs to be checked? By your own words, your own games should be checked since you use suiciding as an actual tactic on a regular basis. Such a hypocrite.

[eddie2]

Ok op complained.

You respond saying for a chance to stay in the tourney. What you did not say in your response was as follows.

I was on 0 points he was on 1 point, there was 2 leaders in that game one of whom was in a stronger position in other games. So had qualified for the next round. Due to a ongoing arguement with the op it pushed my decision to attack him preventing him from a 2nd point this making it easier for me to have a chance of qualifying.

I am guessing that if you two had not been argueing you might not of made the attack. This making the case in 2 parts.

1) suicideing to advance in the event (normally cleared)
2) revenge attack (9 out of 10 cleared) needs several examples for a noted/warned.

It was the way you worded your response that got you a noted. Even though we all see whats happened, and more things being added in later. Teegee locked the thread so proberly went with the complaint and your first response, making it that the arguement was not taken into account.

[iAmCaffeine]

I skimmed through your post. The fact that you can barely spell, use correct grammar or form a coherent paragraph really is to your detriment. You have made assumptions and you are incorrect. I made my decisions based on the best potential results for me in the tournament and I have explained them. I have no need to wish to explain this to you; partly because I expect you will never understand and partly because all you need to do is read my other posts. No further questions need be asked.

The only remaining problem is that, apparently, doing what is best for yourself in a tournament can now get you noted in C&A. That's some fucking bullshit.

Edit: Eddie, you state I didn't say certain things even though they're exactly what I said. The way things are worded is irrelevant. What matters in C&A is your reputation. If you're someone like me, ronc etc. then you can expect a worse result than others who perhaps skim along the surface more often.

[Swifte]

Can't help but weigh in here as someone that's been doing the tournament thing for a long time.

I can appreciate the difficulty the C&A team has in cases like this. But I think the reasoning here, as explained by TeeGee, is not a good precedent to set.

Tournaments, while made up of single games are really events. It's nice that many of them are so accessible to the whole community that you can play them like checkers and keep your head down focused solely on winning your games and see where the chips fall. But for folks that want to take it to the next level, you can play them like chess - survey the field, figure out who the competition is, which games are likely to have the most impact... lots of ways you can try and tip things in your favor. As far as I'm concerned, any of these things should absolutely be allowed at any point in the event, because you're not signed up to just 'play 10 games', you're signed up to try and win the event. This is really the most interesting part of the whole thing if you're really interested in these kinds of tournaments.

If you change the position to say 'you can't do anything we deem out of the ordinary unless it gives you a 100% chance to win/advance' ... that's just not realistic. That means if there's 50 games, a different set of rules applies to game #50 than game #1. That just doesn't seem reasonable, and it's only going to cause you more headaches in the end to figure out if there was a 100% chance or not (the game's called RISK, there's almost never 100% chance). You really don't want to be in the business of figuring out tournament scoring structures and whether or not at that moment in time a particular option was absolutely the best play to help their chances (people aren't always going to get it right). As long as there's a reasonable reason that I think my action gives me some small extra chance to advance... that's what I should do. It's part of playing the event.

All that said, obviously suiciding because of a personal vendetta against a player has no place in any game on CC, tournament or otherwise. If there's proof of that, then it's a whole other issue, but it doesn't sound like that is what the decision was based on in this case.

Would just really encourage C&A to rethink where you're drawing the line here. Thanks.

[iAmCaffeine]

I'd heartily echo what Swifte has said, especially since his calm nature allows him to be much more eloquent than I can when personally involved in the case. I'm truly infuriated by this decision.

[shoop76]

This ruling also ignores the precedent of needing multiple instances of abuse. I do not recall a ruling based on 1 game before. This would open the floodgates for reports especially between players who do have personal issues with each other.

[Dukasaur]

Can't help but weigh in here as someone that's been doing the tournament thing for a long time.

I can appreciate the difficulty the C&A team has in cases like this. But I think the reasoning here, as explained by TeeGee, is not a good precedent to set.

Tournaments, while made up of single games are really events. It's nice that many of them are so accessible to the whole community that you can play them like checkers and keep your head down focused solely on winning your games and see where the chips fall. But for folks that want to take it to the next level, you can play them like chess - survey the field, figure out who the competition is, which games are likely to have the most impact... lots of ways you can try and tip things in your favor. As far as I'm concerned, any of these things should absolutely be allowed at any point in the event, because you're not signed up to just 'play 10 games', you're signed up to try and win the event. This is really the most interesting part of the whole thing if you're really interested in these kinds of tournaments.

If you change the position to say 'you can't do anything we deem out of the ordinary unless it gives you a 100% chance to win/advance' ... that's just not realistic. That means if there's 50 games, a different set of rules applies to game #50 than game #1. That just doesn't seem reasonable, and it's only going to cause you more headaches in the end to figure out if there was a 100% chance or not (the game's called RISK, there's almost never 100% chance). You really don't want to be in the business of figuring out tournament scoring structures and whether or not at that moment in time a particular option was absolutely the best play to help their chances (people aren't always going to get it right). As long as there's a reasonable reason that I think my action gives me some small extra chance to advance... that's what I should do. It's part of playing the event.

All that said, obviously suiciding because of a personal vendetta against a player has no place in any game on CC, tournament or otherwise. If there's proof of that, then it's a whole other issue, but it doesn't sound like that is what the decision was based on in this case.

Would just really encourage C&A to rethink where you're drawing the line here. Thanks.

+1

[IcePack]

This ruling also ignores the precedent of needing multiple instances of abuse. I do not recall a ruling based on 1 game before. This would open the floodgates for reports especially between players who do have personal issues with each other.

I believe there have been notes made in the past based on one game but not actual punishments without further evidence? But that's from memory, perhaps not.

[eddie2]

I skimmed through your post. The fact that you can barely spell, use correct grammar or form a coherent paragraph really is to your detriment. You have made assumptions and you are incorrect. I made my decisions based on the best potential results for me in the tournament and I have explained them. I have no need to wish to explain this to you; partly because I expect you will never understand and partly because all you need to do is read my other posts. No further questions need be asked.

The only remaining problem is that, apparently, doing what is best for yourself in a tournament can now get you noted in C&A. That's some fucking bullshit.

Edit: Eddie, you state I didn't say certain things even though they're exactly what I said. The way things are worded is irrelevant. What matters in C&A is your reputation. If you're someone like me, ronc etc. then you can expect a worse result than others who perhaps skim along the surface more often.

You got a noted. Not really a telling off is it. I was behind you not agreeing with it. But if you did not pick that up then how you word it does matter dont it. Now for this case like said it sets a president on how it will be dealt with. I wasnt giving my opinion on what you done.

Ps caffine you have talked that much rubbish i can only laugh at you.
Ow im so hard done by i tried to help myself advance in a tourney, i done this by suicideing a player i was argueing with. When that player asks me why, i wall him back saying.
"Dont start shit you cant end"

So sorry your move was vindictive it wasnt to try help you advance and was made out of spite...

And to top it off it is proberly because of people like you. They wont change certain rules. Because they will be abused by the likes of you. Then you are now going into the broken record of me ronc etc get treated different. Yawn its so old and been said for that long why stay on the site. Grow up and act like a adult.

[iAmCaffeine]

I skimmed through your post. The fact that you can barely spell, use correct grammar or form a coherent paragraph really is to your detriment. You have made assumptions and you are incorrect. I made my decisions based on the best potential results for me in the tournament and I have explained them. I have no need to wish to explain this to you; partly because I expect you will never understand and partly because all you need to do is read my other posts. No further questions need be asked.

The only remaining problem is that, apparently, doing what is best for yourself in a tournament can now get you noted in C&A. That's some fucking bullshit.

Edit: Eddie, you state I didn't say certain things even though they're exactly what I said. The way things are worded is irrelevant. What matters in C&A is your reputation. If you're someone like me, ronc etc. then you can expect a worse result than others who perhaps skim along the surface more often.

You got a noted. Not really a telling off is it. I was behind you not agreeing with it. But if you did not pick that up then how you word it does matter dont it. Now for this case like said it sets a president on how it will be dealt with. I wasnt giving my opinion on what you done.

Ps caffine you have talked that much rubbish i can only laugh at you.
Ow im so hard done by i tried to help myself advance in a tourney, i done this by suicideing a player i was argueing with. When that player asks me why, i wall him back saying.
"Dont start shit you cant end"

So sorry your move was vindictive it wasnt to try help you advance and was made out of spite...

And to top it off it is proberly because of people like you. They wont change certain rules. Because they will be abused by the likes of you. Then you are now going into the broken record of me ronc etc get treated different. Yawn its so old and been said for that long why stay on the site. Grow up and act like a adult.

The irony of one telling another to act like an adult when you're busy inventing words such as "proberly".

All evidence and arguments have been provided. Swift's post is the best in here. I have nothing else to say until someone with authority comments.

[GoranZ]

I also propose for the C/A team to bring decision after the tournament reaches round 6, so they can reevaluate the effects from iAmCaffeine actions based on what happen, and not what can happen.

that shouldn't be difficult, since no site rules were broken and not a single similar complaint has ever returned a verdict against the accused... however, i do like your "proposal" to the C&A mods... it is kind of cute, you can really tell you don't spend much time in the forums or C&A, for that matter... i'll try to go lightly on you when the accused is cleared... i am sure your intentions are well... to me, you just seem a little misguided. good luck!!! good luck sorting out this tough one, mods!!!-Jésus noir

p.s.-eagerly awaiting the NEW precedent this wholly original complaint sets!!

Reason why you are not CA

Iamcaffeine has suicided on the hope that he (or she) may advance, not to guarantee he would advance.

Given that this is different to the other previous cases and that we have no guarantee that the action of caff would see him advance, This case is NOTED

Well said. He basically failed to explain how suicide into someone will considerably increase his chances to advance.

All evidence and arguments have been provided. Swift's post is the best in here. I have nothing else to say until someone with authority comments.

You are last on the board, you failed to take tournament point in 9 games, but you have hopes that you will take more then 4 in the remaining 6 games(expectation, you might need 6 from 6).
Tho I mist admit Noted is little bit mild punishment.

[nolefan5311]

Bottom line is that, via PM, an offer was made to "repay" me for the actions in that game. If tournament advancement was his only motivation in doing it, he wouldn't have offered to repay me.

[iAmCaffeine]

Bottom line is that, via PM, an offer was made to "repay" me for the actions in that game. If tournament advancement was his only motivation in doing it, he wouldn't have offered to repay me.

Yes, let's all take words out of context. I said I'd play doubles with you. If you haven't noticed, I have two or three callouts threads asking for partners as I want the gold medal.

As for GoranZ, I assume you just read what you want to from people's statements.

[GoranZ]

As for GoranZ, I assume you just read what you want to from people's statements.

You are Noted, not me
I guess next time you gonna suicide into someone you gonna have to think more then twice

[spudulica]

Utter hypocritical double standard bollocks!

This best be a new precedent applied to all from this point. He thought he was going to gain an advantage from a move, he made said move. This is an accepted 'tactic'. Not one I am overly fond of but once it's accepted and the precedent is set that's it done.

I am not entirely sure what noted means either? If you are going to punish for something punish. You can note.

As aforementioned utter bollocks.

[Donelladan]

Noted means that he got no punishment but if he do it again this case may be used as a reference to give him a warning.

[spudulica]

Noted means that he got no punishment but if he do it again this case may be used as a reference to give him a warning.

So it's a possible pre-warning warning

That's a discipline procedure at it's finest.

[jonofperu]

I'm glad some action was taken.
Metagaming in tournaments makes sense to a point, but sometimes it gets taken too far.
Is it good sportsmanship to ruin the game of someone who outplayed you and invested weeks or months in the game by suiciding against them and handing the game to someone else just for the sake of a theoretical 1% advantage in tournament standings? That adds all kinds of variability to the game. Many people would prefer to play each game for it's own sake and see who does best over all in the tournament. It's impossible to guarantee a rule like "play each game to win" and it's very difficult to know how and where to draw the line, but I think it improves the quality of the tournaments if we recognize that it's poor sportsmanship to ruin someone else's game for marginal benefit to yourself. There is precedent for allowing extreme actions to survive an elimination, but this ruling says there is a limit.

I recently played a Championships game where a player I was about to eliminate threatened to suicide against me and give the game to someone else if I didn't give him a truce. There was only a one point difference in our scores and there are still three rounds in the tournament. I asked an admin about the situation and he basically said "players can say whatever they want to". I don't agree with that. You should be held responsible for the action you threaten. Think of the guy who holds up a bank with a toy gun. He get's prosecuted for armed robbery even if he was "just kidding".
So I felt forced to give the guy a one-turn truce, but the more I thought about it the worse it seemed. I was sorely tempted to come back on my turn and eliminate him anyway claiming that the truce had been extracted under duress by threatening illegal action and was therefore null and void. I didn't... because my word and my reputation are worth more to me than a single game in a long tournament. We've now both been eliminated (the blackmail speech also gave out a lot of information - revealing he was about to be eliminated).

The thought also crossed my mind that I could come back to the game and go "all in" by saying "You want to play that way, OK. I'll suicide on you in all our other games together... see how that affects your chances! So release me from this truce." There's a line being crossed. The suicide option has ramifications for a person's reputation and how they are treated in other tournament games. It's not just a math game where suicide makes sense whenever it looks like I can't win and choosing the winner boosts my tourney standing.

When I said that his suicide threat didn't seem fair he said "all's fair in love and war". But all is not fair in love and war... there are rules of war and prenups! And CC does have rules. I think there needs to be a stricter limitation on throwing games in tournaments. The standard now seems to be that such extreme actions have to make a significant contribution to your turnament survival - it can't be for marginal benefit.

P.S. The guy I mentioned felt bad for the threat he made and apologized. I'm not filing a C&A for what he did. But I think it's important to discuss these issues.